Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Forager logistics/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 11:39 25 May 2026 FACBot (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC).

---

Operation Forager logistics

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:43, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

This article is about the logistics of Operation Forager, the capture of the Mariana Islands during World War II. While I have written about the logistics of the campaigns in North West Europe and the South West Pacific, this is the first article on Wikipedia about the logistics of one of the campaigns in Micronesia. Due to the vast size of the Pacific Ocean, just getting there with what was needed was an achievement in itself. Subsequently, the islands were developed into naval and air bases from which the final campaigns against Japan were launched. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:43, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Nick-D

I reviewed this article's recent A-class nomination, and it seems to have been improved since. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• "carrying 5,000 different items, such as toilet paper" - suggest deleting everything after 'items' as this example seems oddly specific for the lead

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  This doesn't seem to have been done? Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

  Deleted again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Marine divisions were authorized to have a shore party - suggest deleting "to have"

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• "but the United States military remained on the island" - in what capacity?

  The US Navy administered the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands until 1951. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• Were any of the construction or logistics units deployed to the islands African-American units? This isn't noted at present if so, but would be worth noting given the racial policies of the time meant that it was the main way African Americans contributed to the Pacific War. Nick-D (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. African-Americans served in base companies in the Pacific Area. An African-American sailor appears in the image at the top of the page. Two African-American Seabee units were organised: the 34th and 80th Naval Constriction Battalions but the 80th served in the Atlantic and the 34th on Guadalcanal and Okinawa. The Army's 1882nd Engineer Aviation Battalion served on Saipan in 1945. Race relations were very poor, as demonstrated by the Agana Race Riot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

My comments have now been addressed, and I'm happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Background

• You could link "amphibious operation" to amphibious warfare.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• On 24 July 1944, the 4th Marine Division landed on nearby Tinian
  • You could link to "Tinian" on first mention, and also to the Battle of the Philippine Sea.

    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• "where there were two very small beaches that were lightly defended” → "where two very small beaches were lightly defended"

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Naval logistics (Shipping)

• You could mention the full form of "LVTs" on first mention.

  Added link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• "as were all but three of the auxiliary ships" → "as were all but three auxiliary ships"

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• "converted to use as an oil tanker" → "converted for use as an oil tanker"

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  • More idiomatic?
• Some units of the V Amphibious Corps and the XXIV Corps Artillery found themselves travelling separately from their unit equipment
• did not put any of their supplies on pallets at all
  • You could drop "at all".

    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  • We could avoid repeating "units".

    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• "each type of supplies" → "each type of supply"

  tweaked wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Naval logistics (Food and water)

• "to provide water to smaller vessels lacking sufficient water storage" → "to provide water to smaller vessels lacking sufficient storage"

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• "The 77th Infantry Division took with it 190,000 US gallons" → "The 77th Infantry Division took 190,000 US gallons"

  That could be ambiguous. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Naval logistics (Fuel)

• each of which had three oilers, escorted by at least two destroyers or destroyer escorts
  • You could drop the comma after "oilers".

    Dropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Naval logistics (Ammunition)

• You could link to War Shipping Administration.

  Already linked above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Ship-to-shore

• The lead uses "LVT" without mentioning the full form whereas the body gives the full name (LVT) twice. How about doing so once each in the lead and body?

  Added to the lead; remove duplicate from the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• five days' of supply
  • Do we need the apostrophe here?

    The WikiGnomes are big on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• You could split a few of the longer sentences, but the section is otherwise fine as it is.

I intend to conclude the review by tomorrow. MSincccc (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Base development

• "so in order to not interrupt fighter operations" → "so as not to interrupt fighter operations"
• Maintenance Unit 515, arrived with the assault
  • Do we need the comma after "515"?

    Yes. Parenthetical comma. Could be replaced with parentheses if you think that would be better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• The 7,000-by-150-foot (2,134 by 46 m) was sealed
  • A missing noun.

    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• North Field was commissioned on 3 February 1945,
  • Do we need the comma after "1945"?

    Yes. Conjunctive comma; two separate clauses. Commas are always required before a coordinating conjunction. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Guam hosted 100,000 Vietnamese refugees in 1975,
  • Similarly, could the comma after "1975" be dropped?

    Yes. Dropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Bottom line

• That's all from me; mostly minor suggestions I leave at your discretion. I look forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

  A fine read and well explained. I look forward to your next article, and I will support this nomination. MSincccc (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Three weeks have passed, and only one general support has been received. Unless this nomination shows significant progress toward a consensus for promotion within the next three or four days, I'm afraid it will have to be archived. FrB.TG (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Image review

I reviewed the article's images at the A-class review (here) and there have been no changes to images in the article since then (in other words, the article passes for image licensing and related issues). The only unresolved issue is for File:Initial supply by classes for Saipan, Sicily, Luzon and Normandy.jpg, which could be improved with a color, .svg version, but I note that Hawkeye requested assistance at the Graphics Lab and has yet to receive a response. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Phlsph7

Hi Hawkeye7, happy to review the nomination. I don't know much about the topic itself, so I'll stick to prose comments.

• transferred to DUKWs or Landing Vehicles, Tracked, (LVT)s on the reef should there be a comma between "Tracked" and "(LVT)s"? The linked article does not use a comma.

  I spent some time thinking about this. It is a parenthetical comma. These can always be replaced by parentheses, but the sources always use the comma (as does the article). The "s" should be inside the parentheses - that is an error. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  • an LST broached and Landing Vehicles, Tracked, (LVTs) and same question as above. Also for consistency: should it be "(LVT)s" or "(LVTs)"?

    LVTs. The purist would use LVT rather than LVTs, but that reads awkwardly to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  • similar question for Landing Craft, Tank, (LCTs), Landing Ships, Tank (LSTs), landing craft, vehicle, personnel, (LCVPs) and Landing Craft, Mechanized (LCMs); should "landing craft, vehicle, personnel" be uppercase?

    Uppercased for consistency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Operation Forager, the U.S. invasion of the Mariana Islands during World War II involved the add a comma after "World War II" to mark the end of the relative clause

  Added comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• The V Amphibious Corps Headquarters ordered 25 to 50 percent of all supplies and two to five units of fire of ammunition be loaded on pallets. There is something wrong with this sentence. Maybe "ordered that" or "ammunition to be loaded"?

  In military-speak we would not use it, but added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• This proved to not only be inefficient in the use of cargo space, but presented difficulty I'm not sure that it is strictly speaking wrong, but there is something odd about this construction. Maybe: "proved not only to be ... but also to present ..."

  It is grammatically incorrect: verb/tense disagreement. Native speakers of English like ourselves often sense when something is wrong but struggle to explain why. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• resupply was from the West Coast though the bases in Hawaii should it be "through"?

  Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• were drawn for Army stocks while replace "for" with "from"

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• with the depots months in advance remove "the" since this seems to be a general, non-specific reference

  I think it is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Chemical Decontamination Company, who had no training replace "who" with "which"

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Copahee shuttled back and forth between the Marianas and Eniwetok. On 7 July, it took back captured Japanese aircraft should it be "she" rather than "it" (referring to the ship Copahee)?

  For consistency, yes. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she") for the debate on this contentious topic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware that this is such a controversial subject that it has its own overview page of past discussions. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Solace was full to capacity "at full capacity" sounds more natural

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• to take on a capacity of 585 cases can we leave out "a capacity of"?

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• loaded in a LCT and "an LCT"?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• the 34th, 152nd and 1341st Engineer Combat battalions should "battalions" be uppercase? I guess it would be uppercase for a single one (e.g. 1341st Engineer Combat Battalion) but I'm not sure about plural cases.

  Yes, it should be. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• target of five days' of supply and desired ten days' of supply remove the possessive "'" after "days"?

  The apostrophe is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• marston mat does it require upper case?

  Uppercased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Fuel had to initially be supplied in drums. putting "initially" at the end may sound more natural.

  Split infinitive? Re-worded as I feel that I have used "initially" too often. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Race relations between white and African-American personnel was strained, replace "was" with "were"

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Phlsph7 (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks good. A few more:

• reef prevented landing craft directly accessing add "from" after "craft"?

  Looks fine to me but changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• travelling the US spelling is "traveling"

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• The seabees and army engineers uppercase for seabees?

  Uppercased. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

• Isley and Isely: are they different terms or are they supposed to be the same? Both are mentioned several times.

  Yes. Sometimes I am overly familiar with the topic. The airfield was renamed Isely Field in honor of Commander Robert H. Isely, a naval aviator killed in the preliminary air strikes on the island, but over time, a misspelling occurred, and it officially became Isley Field. I have added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  That is indeed confusing. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Phlsph7 (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

A few more on the way to finishing line:

• A crucial problem was the provision of sufficient shipping to maintain the fleet and ground force. In the event, a shortage of ships and cargo space forced units to leave some vehicles and unit equipment behind, and some units had to travel on separate ships from their equipment. I think it would sound better without the "In the event".
• Unloading was facilitated by the use of wooden pallets, but not all cargo ships had the space or equipment to accommodate them, and on Guam the reef prevented landing craft from directly accessing the beach and required stores to be transferred to DUKWs or Landing Vehicles, Tracked, (LVTs) on the reef. I would turn the clause starting with "on Guam" into a separate sentence since it presents a new idea.
• Resupply direct from the United States was I think "Direct resupply from..." or "Resupply directly from..." would sound more natural

Generally speaking, the prose is effective and manages to convey many details. In some cases, I had the impression that the focus on details made me miss the bigger picture. In part, this is probably because I'm not familiar with this type of topic and I'm not sure how to best address this issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but on a high level, there seem to be three key aspects to the operation logistics: moving the items across the water while sustaining the fleet at sea, getting the items from the sea to the land, and building bases. Maybe adding a summary sentence along these lines to the first lead paragraph would be helpful. Similar short high-level passages could be added at the start of each of the sections "Naval logistics", "Ship-to-shore", and "Base development" to better orient the reader regarding the main developments. You probably know better than me whether that would be a good idea. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• Changed those three as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Looks good, I'm leaning towards support. What's your take on the concern about details vs broad picture? Phlsph7 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  Added some big picture bits to the front of the sections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  That takes care of the remaining concern. Support on prose! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Harry

Hey Hawkeye! A few nitpicks for you:

• A map might be helpful to get a sense of where these islands are in relation to supply points but I can understand that might not be easy.
• The third sentence (Intervention and disruption by Japanese air and naval forces was anticipated, so not only did the forces ashore have to be supplied with enough resources to continue operations even if unloading was interrupted, but a fleet of warships had to be maintained at sea for up to four months) is chunky. It contains a lot of information and I don't love the passive voice. I attempted a copy edit but couldn't find a version I was happy with. I think a split after "anticipated" (btw, anticipated—active voice is always preferable) is needed. Then we can switch to active voice, but it might need to be split again.

  Y Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oddly, the first sentence of the background section sets the scene more generally than the lead. I'd be more inclined to name the fleet here than in the lead, for example.

  Y Removed the name of the fleet from the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

• Knowing how many soldiers (roughly) were in the two corps would be helpful context, especially in a logistics article (the reader can imagine the challenges of moving 1,000 men vs 10,000 vs 100,000)

  Y Added the number of troops. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Why are we linking some ranks (Vice Admiral) but not others (Admiral, Lieutenant General)?

  Y They should all be linked. Added links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Can we have a couple of examples of the most in-demand items on the stores ships?

  Looking for some examples. Added that radio batteries ran short. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• A staff study by Captain John F. Rees... This is a run-on sentence but more importantly I think summary style means we can sacrifice detail for readability—the important piece of information is what the study said. I think we can lose all the detail about who wrote it and his relationship to other parties, especially as he doesn't an article of his own.

  Y I did consider creating an article on him, but didn't quite have enough information. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• 110 transport vessels were available: I would suggest putting everything after the colon in a footnote. The breakdown is an interesting detail but it breaks up the flow of the prose

  Y Moved to footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• They carried 74,986.6 measurement tons strikes me as false precision; surely it can't be measured to the tenth of a ton?

  Y What the source says. I would expect everything to be accounted for to the cubic foot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Rations for Army units were drawn from Army stocks while those for the Navy and Marine Corps came from Navy stocks. That doesn't seem particularly remarkable; did I miss its significance?

  To me, it illustrates the bean-counting nature of the inter-service collaboration. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• If we're linking hold, it should be on first mention.

  Y Linked on first mention. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• "revictualed" needs an explanation—it's not a common term outside of nautical/military contexts

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Can the names of the ammo ships be removed or footnoted? The oilers and maybe the hospital ships are worth naming because they played a more notable role.

  I would prefer to keep them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• I think some of the detail on the West Loch disaster can be trimmed—that's a sizeable paragraph for an incident not directly relevant to Forager logistics.

  Y Trimmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• regimental combat team might be worth a brief explanation (I think it would be called an enhanced regiment/battalion/brigade in the UK)

  The Second World War term would have been "brigade group". It is linked. I could say: "The regimental combat team (RCT) was an infantry regiment augmented with the support and combat support elements usually allocated within the division to support the regiment. With such augmentation, the RCT was capable of independent action and operations." in a footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Potential supply dump locations identified beforehand from aerial photos were often found to be rice paddies, which were unsuitable This is an interesting detail but the sentence feels like it's just hanging there, unattached to anything else.

  Y Re-worked it a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I've made a few edits as I've gone through. Please check I haven't messed anything up! Otherwise, that's all I've got for you; it looks impeccably researched as ever, my comments are mostly prose flow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: have you seen HJ's comments? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I had not; my watchlist has been flooded with infobox changes. Am adresseing them now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Apologies for not noticing your comments. I think I have addressed everything now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Not a problem. I think you've addressed everything important. Just one last quibble on victualling and RCT: per MOS:NOFORCELINK, we shouldn't be relying on the links for context so a few words of explanation would be helpful. Other than that, I'm happy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I have added a footnote explaining the regimental combat team. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Excellent work as always. I'm happy that you've addressed my quibbles so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.